8
   

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 10:15 am
@neologist,
It gets even weirder
A meeting of hearts if not minds

Christina Blouvan-Cervantes had been battling aggressive leukemia when her blood count plummeted and she landed in the emergency room in Fresno. Her doctors told her a blood transfusion was her only hope. But her faith wouldn't allow her to receive one.

So she turned to one of the only doctors who could possibly keep her alive: a committed atheist who views her belief system as wholly irrational.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/02/local/la-me-jehovahs-20120202
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 10:29 am
@reasoning logic,
You are saying her faith would not allow her to receive a transfusion, yet she did receive one?

That's odd; don't you think?
igm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 10:41 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

The biblical references are all about the eating of blood... how is a transfusion 'eating blood'?

Why don't those who decide on the meaning of Bible verses say that eating blood is not the same as the transfusion of blood? To me there seems no need for the JW translators to interpret the bible passages in this way... especially as children and mothers have died as a consequence.

So, there are two questions in my post.. try to answer them or just say that you don't know the answer or perhaps that you have decided not to answer.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 11:22 am
@igm,
Also neo now that I've researched a little more:

The JW doctrine is that there must be no whole blood transfusions and as you are in this position:

"The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings[153] and all Witnesses must abide by its doctrines and organizational requirements."

I may as well give up on knowing why whole blood transfusions are interpreted as eating blood... Am I correct.. you cannot formulate your own views on the matter or even question why?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 04:12 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
You are saying her faith would not allow her to receive a transfusion, yet she did receive one?


No, not at all. I posted a link just in case you had an interest in the story. Here is a copy and paste.

Quote:


Quote:
A meeting of hearts if not minds
COLUMN ONE
Some Jehovah's Witnesses with leukemia turn to an atheist Cedars-Sinai doctor who respects their refusal to accept blood transfusions.
February 02, 2012|By Anna Gorman, Los Angeles Times



Christina Blouvan-Cervantes had been battling aggressive leukemia when her blood count plummeted and she landed in the emergency room in Fresno. Her doctors told her a blood transfusion was her only hope. But her faith wouldn't allow her to receive one.

So she turned to one of the only doctors who could possibly keep her alive: a committed atheist who views her belief system as wholly irrational.
Ads by Google

White Blood Cells at RiskImportant Info to Ask Your Dr. When it Comes to Chemo & WBC Counts. www.MyWhiteCells.com

Dr. Michael Lill, head of the blood and marrow transplant program at Cedars-Sinai's Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, is a last recourse for Jehovah's Witnesses with advanced leukemia.

PHOTOS: Doctor treats Jehovah's Witnesses

They arrive at Lill's door out of desperation and a desire to live. Many specialists decline to treat them because of their biblically centered refusal to accept blood transfusions, a mainstay of conventional care for the cancer.

Lill thinks their refusal is risky and illogical but nevertheless has devised a way to treat them that accommodates their religious convictions.

Despite his belief that God doesn't exist, he has become a hero to many devout believers.

"We don't care if he believes in God or not," said David Goldfarb, chairman of the Los Angeles-area Hospital Liaison Committee for the Jehovah's Witnesses. "What we really believe in is, 'Are you a skilled and great doctor … and can you respect our belief system?'"

Lill, a 52-year-old Australian native, said ideological differences between doctor and patient are beside the point.

"Just because someone makes a decision which I would view as the wrong decision … doesn't mean at that point in time I say, 'No, I am not going to look after you anymore,' " he said. "I try and treat people's religious beliefs with respect."

::

Leukemia, a disease of the blood and bone marrow, produces cancerous blood cells. Treatment involves chemotherapy to destroy the cancerous cells, sometimes followed by transplants of stem cells that develop into healthy blood cells.

Blood transfusions are usually required, because both the cancer and the treatment suppresses the body's production of blood cells. Without transfusions, the risk of death from anemia or bleeding is significantly higher.

Jehovah's Witnesses draw their beliefs about blood from a literal interpretation of the Bible, which repeatedly warns against its consumption. Among the passages often cited by adherents: "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water."

It is a violation of God's command for a Jehovah's Witness to accept whole blood, red or white blood cells, platelets or plasma, Goldfarb said. It is left to patients to decide individually whether they are comfortable accepting stem cells.

Lill, who received his medical training in Australia, came to the United States in 1989 to work in the bone marrow transplant program at UCLA Medical Center. He accepted a position at Cedars-Sinai in 1997. He and his wife, a stem cell researcher, have two children.
Ads by Google

Lung Cancer TreatmentEffective Lung Cancer Treatment. At UF Proton Therapy Institute. www.floridaproton.org/lung-cancer

He stumbled into the niche of treating Jehovah's Witnesses with leukemia after getting his first referral about 15 years ago. He saw both a professional challenge and an unmet need. Since then, about 50 Witnesses from around the world have come to his team for help, including 35 who have received stem cell transplants.

"People have the right to make their own decisions," he said. Before treating the patients, Lill has a candid discussion about religion and medicine, freely using words like "death" and "dying."

About four years ago, Lill himself was treated for cancer of the appendix. The experience, he said, helped him better understand his patients' fears.

To avoid transfusions, Lill first builds up patients' blood counts with medications. Then he limits blood loss during a regimen of chemotherapy and stem cell transplants.

When he draws blood from patients to check their cell counts and organ function during treatment, he uses tiny pediatric tubes. He gives women a drug to suppress their periods and prescribes a hormone to boost red blood cells.

He has trained his staff in how to treat Jehovah's Witnesses, and "No Blood" signs are posted in their hospital rooms.

Other hematologists and oncologists consider Lill's bloodless treatment experimental and risky.

"There is a certain nobility in trying to help these patients," said Dr. Stephen Forman, chairman of hematology and cell transplantation at City of Hope cancer center in Duarte. "But it is of questionable good safety.... You might get yourself in a situation where your patient could die."

One of Lill's Jehovah's Witness leukemia patients died recently after suffering a brain hemorrhage. Lill said the death might have been prevented if the patient had received a transfusion.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 05:00 pm
@igm,
I'll try to answer some of this on my phone.
The reference to eating has been discussed ad
nauseum in the thread I mentioned earlier.
The scriptural admonition is to "abstain from blood".
We don't use fertilizer containing blood.
We would not deliberately eat meat from animals
that had been fed blood. The Bible teaches that blood
is sacred.

The thread mentioned earlier spent many pages
discussing the fact that, even when properly bled,
some blood remains in the meat. The point
I maintain is that blood is not some bugaboo or
poison. It is what blood represents that requires
respect.

It is only coincidentally, IMO, that recent medical
discovery has shown an advantage to bloodless surgery
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Aug, 2013 07:30 pm
Real men of God?

0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 02:39 am
@neologist,
WBT = whole blood transfusion
JW = Jehovah’s Witness.

There is something about why JW’s would rather die than receive a WBT that is not clear to me.

You say, “It is what blood represents that requires respect.” [because,] “The bible teaches that blood is sacred.” [and the bible also teaches one should,] "abstain from blood" for this reason.

The question is, if you decided to receive a WBT what do you believe would be the consequences of such an action?

Put another way, if you are willing to die rather than receive a WBT then the consequences must be as serious as it is possible to be. You are willing to die rather than suffer these consequences. What are these consequences? You must know because you are willing to die to avoid them.

So neo, can you please explain these consequences?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 02:23 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
. . . . The question is, if you decided to receive a WBT what do you believe would be the consequences of such an action? . . .
Depends.
Any sin may be forgiven. Though there may be consequences.

Suppose I agreed to a transfusion in a moment of weakness. I most likely would be forgiven by the congregation, also by God. If I were to contract hepatitis, that would be a consequence. If I were to begin preaching to the congregation that WBTs are OK, I would likely be disfellowshipped.

The same goes for any sin. Were I to claim that adultery, stealing, or drug use should be acceptable, you might expect that I would no longer be considered a JW. But what about something seemingly insignificant, like snatching a piece of fruit from the well to do grocer?

Here we get to the true nature of sin. Even murder may be forgven. It's not the sin itself but deliberate sin, the practice of sin, which condemns. Adam Eve had only to eat a fruit. Most Bible scholars consider their sin deliberate and their punisment just.

I can't add much more. The growing number of physicians practicing bloodless surgery on non JWs makes further argument academic.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 02:38 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Suppose I agreed to a transfusion in a moment of weakness. I most likely would be forgiven by the congregation, also by God.

If this is correct then why are there cases of JW's being prepared to die in order to avoid a transfusion? There is something missing from your answers. Is it anything to do with this (i.e. resurrection)?

"Witnesses believe that a "little flock" go to heaven, but that the hope for life after death for the majority of "other sheep" involves being resurrected by God to a cleansed earth after Armageddon. They interpret Revelation 14:1–5 to mean that the number of Christians going to heaven is limited to exactly 144,000, who will rule with Jesus as kings and priests over earth. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only they meet scriptural requirements for surviving Armageddon, but that God is the final judge. During Christ's millennial reign, most people who died prior to Armageddon will be resurrected with the prospect of living forever; they will be taught the proper way to worship God to prepare them for their final test at the end of the millennium."

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 03:59 pm
@igm,
Not all JWs will succumb to that moment of weakness.
I think I would not.
I would hope to never do so deliberately.

But David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:35 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Not all JWs will succumb to that moment of weakness.
I think I would not.
I would hope to never do so deliberately.

Ok, but for what reason... why is death preferable to receiving a transfusion, if as you say all would likely be forgiven by God and JW's? You still haven't explained... you do things based on scriptural understanding gleaned and passed down by your elders; there must be some reason you've not yet given.... what is it?

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 04:58 pm
@igm,
Death, IMO, is preferable to deliberate sin.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Aug, 2013 06:52 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
As the title reads "Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?
Yes.

Quote:
If you have questioned others beliefs what methodology did you use?
I challenged flaws in their reasoning.
Most of those challenges were addressed to political ideology.





David
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 02:28 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Death, IMO, is preferable to deliberate sin.

Why? You still haven't given a reason. What will happen to you if you deliberately sin e.g. by accepting a transfusion? You've said you're going to probably be forgiven so why not live with this particular sin in order for your family to have the benefits of your still being with them?

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 03:31 am
This thread is about beating up on the JWs? It should say so in the tags.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 05:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

This thread is about beating up on the JWs? It should say so in the tags.

I'm certainly willing to do that if you'd actually give a reason. What you've said is I, Setanta have told everyone, that I know that JW's are being beaten up but I'm not go to give you any reasons for saying that.

At least you show consistency in most of your posts that are non-historical.


Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 08:22 am
@igm,
Whty don't you go out and buy a f*cking sense of humor, you self-righteous prig . . .
igm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 09:44 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Whty don't you go out and buy a f*cking sense of humor, you self-righteous prig . . .

Again, you make a statement but fail to explain why your statement is correct. Why do you think that making baseless pronouncements without giving the reasons why those pronouncements are correct is anything other than baseless drivel... it certainly can't be excused as humor.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Aug, 2013 09:49 am
@igm,
You say it can't be excused as humor because you're a sanctimonious prig who takes himself far too seriously, who thinks his every pronouncement is a gem of wisdom and who completely lacks a sense of humor. You're a legend in your own mind.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 10:14:18